Obviously, the prosecution intends to take this letter as basis for the assertion that Professor Weltz participated in the planning and the carrying out of the experiments. At the session of 8 May 1947, (_Tr. p. 7237_) the prosecutor referred to this letter and drew the conclusion therefrom that Field Marshal Milch, pursuant to the information he had obtained from Professor Hippke on 20 May, thought that Rascher still belonged to the office of Weltz in Munich and that Professor Weltz was entrusted with the carrying out of the freezing experiments for this reason. If and to what extent Field Marshal Milch was informed about the actual events may be left undecided. It is merely established that Professor Hippke already knew at that time that Stabsarzt Rascher no longer belonged to the office of Weltz. This appears with certainty from NO-296, Prosecution Exhibit 58, which is the letter of the Medical Inspector of the Luftwaffe of 27 April 1942 to the Chief of the Personal Staff of the Reich Leader SS, from the reply to Wolff’s application to Hippke of 16 April 1942, in which Wolff asks for the extension of Stabsarzt Rascher’s assignment to the DVL (German Research Institute for Aviation), Dachau Branch. There is, therefore, no doubt that on 20 May 1942, Hippke knew that at that time Rascher no longer belonged to Weltz’ office. How it happened that the name of Professor Weltz was mentioned in this document was established by Professor Hippke’s testimony as witness in the trial against Erhard Milch. (_Weltz 3, Weltz Ex. 7._) Professor Hippke testified in this connection that in a discussion at the beginning of June 1942 he was informed by Rascher that the latter had received orders from the Reich Leader SS (Himmler) to carry out freezing experiments. A report on this conference is contained in NO-283, Prosecution Exhibit 82. Supplementing this report, Rascher’s report on his conference with Professor Hippke, Hippke himself testified that he was thinking of Professor Weltz because he knew that Professor Weltz—in his institute in Munich—had been working on problems of freezing with animal experiments. Later, he had abandoned this plan to ask Professor Weltz to cooperate in the carrying out of these experiments because he had become convinced that the theoretical work was not the point but the practical experience on freezing problems and that not Professor Weltz but Professor Holzloehner had the greater practical experience. However, it has been established that Professor Weltz never received such an order and also that he was not otherwise concerned in any way with the carrying out of the freezing experiments. This is proved by the testimony of the defendant Weltz in his own case, (_Tr. 7108-09_), and by the affidavit of Professor Weltz’ co-worker Dr. Wendt. (_Weltz 23, Weltz Ex. 21._)